alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:11
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:12
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:13
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:14
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:15
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:16
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:17
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:18
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:19
Case: 1:02-cv-04340 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/02 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:20
# C_2021009EN.01001801.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2020 — Totalizator Sportowy v EUIPO — Lottoland Holdings (Lottoland)

(Case T-820/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Lottoland - Earlier national figurative marks LOTTO and Lotto - Earlier national word mark lotto - Declaration of partial invalidity - Relative ground for refusal - No damage to reputation - No link between the marks at issue - Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 9/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Totalizator Sportowy sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lottoland Holdings Ltd (Ocean Village, Gibraltar) (represented by: A. Gérard, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2019 (Case R 97/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Totalizator Sportowy and Lottoland Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Totalizator Sportowy sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Totalizator Sportowy sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
Exhibit 31.2

I,
Daniel Harvey, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Traffix, Inc. ("Registration");

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the registrant and
have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 1, 2004

| |  |     |                                                      
| |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: | /s/ DAVID HARVEYDANIEL HARVEY
Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Traffix, Inc. and will be retained by Traffix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 11 

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Obama administration’s 

discontinuing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 2011 

Mr. INHOFE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Obama 

administration’s discontinuing to defend the Defense of 

Marriage Act. 

Whereas, on February 23, 2011, President Barack Obama 

ordered the Department of Justice to drop its defense of 

a central part of the 1996 law that bars the Federal Government from recognizing same-sex unions, the Defense 

of Marriage Act (adding section 7 of title 1, United 

States Code), and both President Obama and Attorney 

General Eric Holder concluded the law is unconstitutional; 

Whereas President Obama himself has said that marriage is 

something sanctified between a man and a woman; 

Whereas, passed by significant majorities in both chambers of 

Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 11 IS 

the Defense of Marriage Act has never been overturned 

in any Federal lawsuit challenging that Act’s constitutionality by a Federal court, yet the Department of Justice has decided not to defend that Act in Federal court; 

Whereas, on the contrary, the Department of Justice is vigorously defending in numerous Federal courts across the 

country President Obama’s signature health care reform 

law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

(Public Law 111–148), and the related Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111– 

152), after the bills involved barely passed both chambers 

of Congress on party line votes, and whose critical individual mandate provision has been declared unconstitutional by separate Federal district courts in the cases of 

Florida v. United States Department of Health and 

Human Services, Case No.: 3:10–cv–91–RV/EMT (N.D. 

Fla., Jan. 31, 2011), and Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. 

Sebelius, 728 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Va. 2010); and 

Whereas the vast majority of Americans believe that marriage 

should continue to be what it always has been—the legal 

and spiritual union between one man and one woman: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) condemns the Obama administration’s di4 rection that the Department of Justice should dis5 continue defending the Defense of Marriage Act; and 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SCON 11 IS 

1 (2) demands that the Department of Justice 

2 continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in 

3 all instances. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-81961 and Form S-8 No. 333-81967) pertaining to the Nicholas
Financial, Inc. Employee Stock Option Plan and the Nicholas Financial, Inc.
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated June 9, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Nicholas Financial, Inc.
and subsidiaries included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended
March 31, 2004.

                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
June 25, 2004
Case: 1:02-cv-00500 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/30/02 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:121

Case: 1:02-cv-00500 Document #: 26 Filed: 10/30/02 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:122
# C_2020077EN.01005001.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/50

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2020 — Clem & Jo Optique v EUIPO — C&A (C&J)

(Case T-125/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 77/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clem & Jo Optique SARL (Cormicy, France) (represented by: N. Hausmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervener before the General Court: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 (Case R 1252/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between C&A and Clem & Jo Optique.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Clem & Jo Optique SARL shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Clem & Jo Optique SARL shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | C&A AG shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

C&A AG shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
**EXHIBIT 10.3**
**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
We consent to the use of our report dated January 27, 2003, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Commerce One, Inc., includedin the annual report on Form 20-F, as amended, of SAP AktiengesellschaftSysteme, Anwendungen, Produkte in Der Datenverarbeitung and subsidiaries (“SAPAG”) that is made a part of the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-60399, 333-65083, 333-30380, 333-41762, 333-63496, 333-63464 and333-102564) of SAP AG.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLPWalnut Creek, CaliforniaApril 14, 2003
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 955 

To provide grants for the renovation, modernization or construction of law 

enforcement facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2011 

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide grants for the renovation, modernization or 

construction of law enforcement facilities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Those Who 

5 Serve Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES.—The 

9 term ‘‘law enforcement facilities’’ means any buildVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:17 May 13, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S955.IS S955

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 955 IS

1 ing or facilities that houses State or local public 

2 safety officers that have law enforcement standing. 

3 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of 

4 the several States, the District of Columbia, the 

5 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth 

6 of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 

7 Guam, the Virgin Islands, any territory or posses8 sion of the United States, and any Indian tribe. 

9 SEC. 3. GRANTS. 

10 The Attorney General is authorized to make grants 

11 to States for the renovation, modernization, and construc12 tion of law enforcement facilities. 

13 SEC. 4. MATCHING REQUIREMENT. 

14 (a) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.—The matching re15 quirements for this Act are as follows: 

16 (1) Law enforcement facilities serving popu17 lations of over 50,000 or more shall agree to match 

18 the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Fed19 eral funds equal to 20 percent of the total project 

20 cost. 

21 (2) Law enforcement facilities serving popu22 lations between 20,000 and 50,000 shall agree to 

23 match the Federal grant funds with an amount of 

24 non-Federal funds equal to 10 percent of the total 

25 project cost. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 955 IS

1 (3) Law enforcement facilities serving areas 

2 with a population of 20,000 or fewer shall agree to 

3 match the Federal grant funds with an amount of 

4 non-Federal funds equal to 5 percent of the total 

5 project cost. 

6 (b) COST-SHARE.—For purposes of this section, the 

7 regional projects’ cost-share shall be based on the total 

8 population and demographics of the entire region. 

9 SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION. 

10 The Attorney General shall prescribe requirements, 

11 including application requirements, for grants under the 

12 program under this Act. 

13 SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

14 There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

15 this Act $500,000,000 for fiscal years 2012 through 2017. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 28, 2014

NO. 03-13-00260-CV

H.K. Global Trading, Ltd., Appellant

v.

Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Greg Abbott, 

Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 21, 2012. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT 10.10



                               AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND
                               RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE
                                           
    Reference is made to that certain Promissory Note dated December 6, 1995,
as Amended and Restated on June 3, 1996, in the aggregate principal amount of
$888,019, by Technology Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. ("TFF"), to Seafla, Inc. (now
known as RRHDH, Inc., the "Payee") (the "Note").  The undersigned hereby agree
to amend the Note as follows:

    1.   The initial installment payment of $177, 603.80 due January 1, 1997,
plus $106,562 in interest accrued thereon from January 1, 1997 to December 31,
1997, shall be payable on March 31, 1998.  Each additional installment payment
thereafter of $177, 603.80 plus accrued interest shall be payable on the first
day of January of each succeeding year thereafter until January 1, 2002, on
which date the balance due, if any, of principal and interest, will be paid.

    2.   In consideration for the foregoing, TFF agrees that all interest
accrued from December 6, 1995 through December 31, 1996, totaling $102,767,
shall be paid in nine (9) equal monthly installments of $10,000, on the
fifteenth day of each month commencing on April 15, 1997, with a final
installment of $12,767 to be paid on January 15, 1998.

    3.   Except as expressly set forth above, the remaining provisions of the
Note shall remain in full force and effect.

    AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 1997.

RRHDH, INC. (F/K/A) SEAFLA, INC.)                TECHNOLOGY FLAVORS &
                                                 FRAGRANCES, INC.

By:  /s/ RICHARD HIGGINS                         By: /s/ PHILIP ROSNER    
    --------------------------------------           ------------------
    Name:     Richard Higgins                    Name:     Philip Rosner
    Title:    President                          Title:    President
# C_2019337EN.01001601.xml

| 7.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/16

---

Action brought on 1 August 2019 – Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO – Chiesi Farmaceutici (NOSTER)

(Case T-550/19)

(2019/C 337/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Kyoto, Japon) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark NOSTER – International registration designating the European Union No 1 332 950

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 in Case R 2279/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Wellborn *v.*The State.

*Retailing TÁquor.*

(Decided Feb. 6, 1908.

45 South. 646.)

*Indictment; Name of Accused; Plea of Misnomer.*— Where the indictment alleged the name of the accused as “W. J.,” coupled with the allegation that the defendant’s name was unknown to the grand jury otherwise than as stated, the indictment was sufficient under the statute, and a plea of misnomer setting up that the defendant was not named “W. J.” but was known and called as “James” was properly stricken on motion .

*80Appeal from Cleburne County Court.

Heard before Hon. T. A. Johnson.

W. J. Wellborn was convicted of selling spirituous, vinous or malt liquors without license and contrary to law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Evans & McMahon, for appellant. No brief came to the Reporter.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

The court properly struck the plea in abatement. *•*— Noblm *v. The State,*100 Ala. 13; *Winter v. The State,*90 Ala. 637; *Gerrish v. The State,*53 Ala. 476.

DOWDELL, J.

The only question presented for our consideration is the action of the trial court in striking, on motion of the solicitor, the defendant’s plea of misnomer. The defendant was indicted by his initials “W. J.,” and it is averred in the indictment that the defendant’s Christian name is unknown to the grand jury, otherwise than as stated in the indictment. The plea set up that the defendant’s true name was “James Wellborn,” and by that name he was known and called, etc. The averment in the indictment that the defendant’s name was unknown to the grand jury, otherwise than as stated, made the indictment, sufficent under the statute. The plea was properly stricken on the *motion.*— Gerrish *v. State,*53 Ala. 476; *Noblin v. State,*100 Ala. 13, 14 South. 767; *Winter v. State,*90 Ala. 637, 8 South. 556.

No error appearing on the record, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.
# C_2021471EN.01004101.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Infineon Technologies Dresden and Infineon Technologies v Commission

(Joined Cases T-233/19 and T-234/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by Germany for some large electricity consumers - Exemption from network charges in respect of the 2012-2013 period - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful, and ordering the recovery of the aid paid - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of aid - State resources)

(2021/C 471/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant in Case T-233/19: Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-234/19: Infineon Technologies AG (Neubiberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/56 of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/c) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 StromNEV (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG and Infineon Technologies AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG and Infineon Technologies AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---